|
from Sott Website
Among the many comments we have read and received on the alleged death of Gaddafi, the one most often repeated goes something like this:
The widely-held belief (at least in Western nations) that Gaddafi was a 'brutal dictator' is the result of over 30 years of (primarily) US, British and French propaganda against the former Libyan leader.
The reasons
for this long-running propaganda campaign are many, but chief among them is
the fact that Gaddafi was not only fiercely independent as regards his
native land, but he persistently sought to bring financial independence to
other African nations.
Another way to say this is that governments will lie
about their undemocratic activities in order to maintain a facade of
democracy and thereby avoid disturbing the population. (For those who may
have, understandably, forgotten the core democratic principles,
check this
link for a short refresher course.)
But virtually all Western mainstream media outlets today are owned by a handful of powerful corporations and mega-wealthy individuals who count high level members of Western governments among their close friends and confidants.
The truth of this can easily be verified by anyone with a computer and a little time to do some research of their own.
The extent of the actual freedom of the 'free press' can also be ascertained by revisiting the way in which the Western media blindly accepted and reported as truth government lies prior to and after the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
It
is reasonable then to conclude that the Western media, by and large, acts as
a 'Ministry of Propaganda' for Western governments, especially in situations
where government(s) are pursuing policies that are at variance with
democratic ideals.
Gaddafi with Mandela
Indeed, in a 2009 talk given to students at Georgetown University, Gaddafi threatened to kick Western oil companies out of Libya altogether by nationalizing its oil and natural gas.
What is beyond dispute is that Gaddafi used his nation's oil wealth to turn Libya into the most progressive and modern of all African nations.
In a 2007 African executive magazine it was noted that Libya,
Throughout most of Gaddafi's rule, Libyan citizens enjoyed free health care, free education and free electricity and water.
Car purchases for every citizen were 50% subsidized by the government. Gas in Gaddafi's Libya was $0.14 per liter. Under this 'brutal dictator', the mother of every newborn child received $5,000.
All these, and many other social benefits under Gaddafi, make the supposedly socialist systems of France and other European nations look like predatory capitalist regimes.
Today, with Gaddafi gone,
Libya's generous social benefits and the formerly high standard of living of
its citizens are under serious threat from the new pro-Western puppet
regime.
Many major African companies, in which Gaddafi had
invested via the 'Libya Arab Africa Investment Portfolio', now face
financial ruin as Libyan oil money is diverted to the West under Libya's new
rulers.
Gaddafi's idea was that African and Muslim nations would join together to create this new currency and use it to purchase oil and other resources to the exclusion of the dollar and other currencies.
While a Russia Today report (below video) called it,
...Gaddafi's plans for a radical financial overhaul of African economies would undoubtedly have sounded the death knell for IMF looting of African economies, not to mention the 'CFA Franc', a colonial currency tied to the Euro and the French central bank and used in twelve formerly French-ruled African countries (hence the unbridled enthusiasm with which the French government joined the fray).
A "generous humanist"? Dare we say a genuine socialist?
The late African
freedom fighter, Kwame Ture, further characterized Gaddafi as 'a diamond in
a cesspool of African misleaders'. "African misleaders"
installed and
financed by Western governments.
Are we surprised? Is it mere coincidence that the NATO bombing campaign began on the 8th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq?
The Egyptian uprising was more or less legitimate
based on the psychopathic policies of a real 'brutal dictator' - Hosni
Mubarak - who had brought millions of Egyptians to the brink of starvation.
And take note how Mubarak was dealt with in comparison to Gaddafi. But no
such conditions existed in socialist Libya.
Lots of NATO bombs...
Perhaps we can also understand why images such as the one
below are being touted by the Western media as 'crowds of Libyans queuing to
'gawp' at the 'brutal dictator's dead body':
Not very convincing 'crowd'
queues to see the 'brutal dictator's body
See
here for more 'crowd' pictures.
During a
bombing raid on 30 April, Gaddafi's
son, Saif el-Arab, 29, as well as three of his grandchildren, were killed.
The four-month-old daughter of Gaddafi's daughter Aisha was among those
murdered.
The story of Gaddafi's 'death' strikes me as a little too similar to that of Saddam Hussein (pulled from a 'spider hole', 'hiding like a rat', etc.) and the images and videos that are doing the rounds on the mainstream media sites are far too grainy to be proof of anything.
At least one of them (below) is clearly a doctored version of an image purportedly taken at the site of Osama Bin Laden's death, which in itself could be taken as evidence that the same people were involved in both staged events.
Look at 'Gaddafi's' left shoulder.
The pictures
of the dead men at 'Bin Laden's compound' contained one of a man with a toy
'water gun' beneath him. The gun was bright green, the blood was dark red,
and the man wore a white shirt and had dark black hair. He also had one hand
across his chest.
Déja vu
Look familiar?
The CIA photoshopper simply
flipped the image and put Gaddafi's face on it. The water gun was moved
slightly so that the orange on the gun is no longer visible. (Hat-tip to
Pundit Press for pointing this out.)
Note the 'drooping eyelids'
and wrinkle lines
One distinctive feature is ptosis.
Also called 'drooping eyelid', ptosis is caused by weakness of the muscle responsible for raising the eyelid, damage to the nerves that control those muscles, or looseness of the skin of the upper eyelids.
Whether a genetic trait or a
result of aging or plastic surgery, Gaddafi had it. The other distinctive
feature is some marked 'wrinkles' extending diagonally from the corner of
his eyes across his cheek-bones. Check any images of the 'brutal dictator'
from the past few years and you'll see these prominent lines in every image.
What happened to the 'drooping eyelids' and the wrinkle lines?
Same man?
And another image taken during the same year:
While we were unable to find any images of the back of Gaddafi's head, we think the above two provide a decent enough view to conclude that he had a significant amount of hair covering his whole head (marked receding on the front sides notwithstanding).
Compare the above
images with a still from the 'capture video' showing the top of the head of
the man who was dragged out of the 'rat hole':
Thinning on top - 'rat-hole
Gaddafi'
Granted, in the first images of Gaddafi above, he could well be wearing a wig or hair-piece.
Curiously enough, the Washington Post went out of its way to explain that DNA tests conducted by Libyan doctors on the man they pulled out of the 'rat-hole' confirmed that the hair on his head was not Moammar Gaddafi's because the unlucky stooge was wearing a wig.
What are we supposed to believe here? That they ran identity-verification tests on a wig?! Are they that stupid? Hardly.
It's more likely that they ran tests on real hair because clearly 'rat hole Gaddafi' DID have some hair. But when there was no match, the wig was set up to take the blame.
What else are we to conclude from the comment in the
Washington Post that "the hair was not Moammar Gaddafi's" other than the man
pulled from the rat hole was not Muammar Gaddafi?
We suppose it
might take a while to convince the
90% of the Libyan population which
supports Gaddafi that a Western puppet government and economic occupation by
Western corporations is actually a good thing.
Omitted from the end of Cameron's statement was
'and we should also remember
that I'm lying through my teeth.'
But let's have a quick review of 'Gaddafi's crimes' as reported by Cameron.
© ITV/MI5 having "IRA film 1988" pasted on it as the narrator worked through a list of
the past (non-existent) sins of Gaddafi for the British
audience in September this year.
Also consider the following interesting link between alleged IRA attacks and the Lockerbie bombing.
During the 1970s and early 1980s, one Dr. Thomas Hayes progressed to become Head of Department at the British Royal Armaments Research Establishment (RARDE).
His testimony was central to the bogus Lockerbie verdict. A Parliamentary inquiry into the 1974 alleged IRA 'Maguire Seven' bombing and mistrial discovered that key forensic evidence indicated the innocence of the accused.
This evidence, which
was known to Dr. Hayes and
two RARDE colleagues, was not disclosed at the Maguire Seven trial. The
Maguire Seven were eventually freed on appeal after spending fifteen years
in jail.
With
the mainstream media bought and paid for,
global, corporate, fascist domination is a done deal unless we all wake up
to the reality of the situation and start calling it for what it is -
bullshit, through and through.
But what really concerns us here is not our own rising blood pressure, but the future of Libya. Already the vultures are circling, eying their prize in the form of Libya's natural resources.
Take
it away, French Minister of Defence, Gérard Longuet:
Ah yes, 'reconstruction', Libyans can kiss goodbye to the relatively decent standard of living they enjoyed under Gaddafi.
Just look at post-invasion Iraq:
The idea that Gaddafi would have waited until he was dragged from a sewer by a gang of bloodthirsty hoodlums and then beaten and shot dead is stretching his reputation as a true 'man of the people' a little far.
Gaddafi's decades of experience gleaned from dealing with and observing the treachery of 'Western diplomacy', both up close in person and from afar, would have left him in no doubt as to what lay in store for him if US-imposed regime change ever came to Libya.
He would also have been
egotistical enough to realize that he would be of better service to his
beloved Libya alive than dead.
As with the case of Saddam, there is evidence that this is what happened. As Joe Quinn noted at the time, the death of Saddam Hussein was more than likely faked. See his article on the Capture, Trial and Conviction of Saddam Hussein for evidence that Saddam too was spirited out of the country long before someone that looked like him was pulled from a 'rat-hole'.
Consider also the very convenient way in which the alleged body
of Gaddafi has
now been secretly buried in an unmarked grave in the desert.
Much like the alleged dumping of the body of Osama bin Laden 'at sea', this
little maneuver stinks of a cover-up.
The report quoted a Libyan military council source as saying that troops
loyal to Gaddafi's regime accompanied the convoy to the border.
The modern Libyan city of Misrata, before and after NATO and its mercenaries - NOT Gaddafi, or "Gaddafi's loyal supporters" - bombed it back to the stone age.
And then on 11 October, the Bulawayo News reported that:
We submit that the publishing of grisly (and grainy) photos and video of the alleged death of Gaddafi is not for the benefit of the global public at all (even though many seem to have relished the lynching).
Rather, it is for the benefit of the leaders of any other nations who might be thinking about disobeying the dictates of the US Empire and the World bank.
British deputy prime minister Nick Clegg seemed to confirm Joe's earlier thoughts about this when he declared on 22 October that:
In making this statement, Clegg has departed from the British government's
original rationale for an attack on Libya - humanitarian intervention - and
has made clear the real reason for the eight month-long bombing of Libya,
its people, and their freedoms - naked, bloody imperialism, launched - quite
coincidentally - on 19 March, the same date as the invasion of Iraq eight
years ago.
...are such fantastical bullshit that we reckon Hague deserves a prize.
If Gaddafi was in fact executed on October 20th, then Hague and his ilk in the US and France are undoubtedly delighted.
Gaddafi in the dock at The Hague was the very last thing any members of the US, British or French criminal enterprises (aka governments) would have wanted to see, mainly because of the large quantities of beans he would have spilled.
They didn't want a rerun of Slobodan Milosevic's truth-letting tainting their blood-spattered image as liberators, an embarrassing judicial episode which thankfully, for NATO governments, came to an abrupt end with the termination of the former Serb leader in his jail cell.
|
